You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2011/12/04 19:22:51 UTC
[JEXL] Are users likely to implement the Script interface?
As the subject says - how likely is it that users will have
implemented the Script interface?
There are no unit test cases that do (apart from the one I added to
check for binary compat).
Don't know if this is an indication that the unit tests are incomplete
or that there is not really a use case for implementing the interface,
(other than the implementations which are already supplied.)
Any idea?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [JEXL] Are users likely to implement the Script interface?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 December 2011 18:46, henrib <he...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> sebb-2-2 wrote
>>
>> Don't know if this is an indication that the unit tests are incomplete
>> or that there is not really a use case for implementing the interface,
>> (other than the implementations which are already supplied.)
>>
> I don't think anyone would implement the Script interface without deriving /
> delegating to an ExpressionImpl which is internal (by transitivity from the
> protected ASTJexlScript member); so it'b be someone trying to extend Jexl
> capabilities.
> Jexl being usually featured and used as a glue / joint, JEXL Scripts are
> usually used as classes members thus implementing Script is very unlikely.
OK, thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [JEXL] Are users likely to implement the Script interface?
Posted by henrib <he...@apache.org>.
sebb-2-2 wrote
>
> Don't know if this is an indication that the unit tests are incomplete
> or that there is not really a use case for implementing the interface,
> (other than the implementations which are already supplied.)
>
I don't think anyone would implement the Script interface without deriving /
delegating to an ExpressionImpl which is internal (by transitivity from the
protected ASTJexlScript member); so it'b be someone trying to extend Jexl
capabilities.
Jexl being usually featured and used as a glue / joint, JEXL Scripts are
usually used as classes members thus implementing Script is very unlikely.
I've been working on a redesign of the API for a potential V3 - a fresh and
clean API made to be stable but breaking free from the "ancient" Velocity
ties - and moved the ExpressionImpl equivalent to an internal package; I'll
commit soon in the trunk, tests ok, Checkstyle stuff remains mainly.
Cheers,
Henrib
--
View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/JEXL-Are-users-likely-to-implement-the-Script-interface-tp4157600p4157664.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org